Utopia Talk / Politics / Ukraine uses western dollars ...

LazyCommunist Member	Sun Jun 01 07:47:37 ... to destroy ancient Russian planes. American and European tax payer: how much did this attack cost you? Several millions at least! Because they say a drone swarm was used, so possibly hundreds of them, hundreds of modern high tech drones. And all paid by YOU! What did Russia lose? Planes that were 50+ years old^^ WHO CARES!!!! Yes we used such planes a few time in the SMO. But now we do it all with drones, much cheaper for us. We use fiber optic drones to drive off the Ukrainians from the land that we want to conquer and it works. https://defence-blog.com/ukraine-hits-russian-bomber-bases-with-fpv-drone-swarm/ Ukraine hits Russian bomber bases with FPV drone swarm Jun 1, 2025 Ukraine has launched what appears to be its largest drone-based operation to date, striking two key Russian air bases that house strategic bombers used in long-range attacks against Ukrainian cities. The June 1 attack targeted the Olenya and Belaya airfields deep inside Russian territory, Ukrainian sources confirmed. According to information released by Ukrainian officials, the operation involved swarms of FPV drones remotely launched from vehicles positioned near the airfields. These mobile platforms were reportedly parked within proximity of the targets, enabling direct line-of-sight control for precise navigation and terminal attack. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) is overseeing the effort as part of an ongoing special operation code-named “Pavutyna” — or “Web” — aimed at degrading Russia’s long-range strike capabilities. “This is a coordinated effort to eliminate enemy aircraft that continue to attack our civilian infrastructure on a nightly basis,” a Ukrainian official familiar with the operation said. Ukrainian sources claim the drone assault damaged or destroyed over 40 aircraft, including Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers, as well as at least one A-50 airborne early warning aircraft. Publicly released footage shows burning Tu-95 bombers on airfield aprons, with secondary explosions visible in multiple locations. Open-source videos filmed by local residents appear to confirm the timing and location of the strikes. Later in the day, Ukrainian defense channels released additional visual evidence showing smoldering Russian aircraft engulfed in flames. The scale of the damage has not been independently verified, but estimates from Ukrainian sources put Russian losses above $2 billion. If confirmed, this would represent the most damaging strike on Russia’s strategic aviation assets since the full-scale invasion began in 2022. The Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers struck in the raid are among the primary platforms used by Russian Aerospace Forces to launch cruise missiles into Ukrainian cities. Their destruction could temporarily disrupt Russia’s ability to conduct deep strikes from standoff range.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jun 01 11:44:28 Amazing attack. Russia completely ate shit this morning because ukrainians hid some drones in shipping containers. Ahahahahahahahaha
jergul large member	Sun Jun 01 11:50:49 Russia says 5 planes were hit and no people injured as its delegation to peace negotiations in Istanbul depart. Not really something that can be hidden. We will know for sure with sat imagery easily showing any and all losses. Losing 5 aircraft is like a lazy afternoon on a US aircraft carrier sammy :D.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 01 11:52:05 Covert operations are funny, that is true. Remember the one that hit the Pentagon using only box cutters?
jergul large member	Sun Jun 01 12:00:52 6 Tu-95s strategic bombers hit, 2 Tu-22s strategic bombers hit, 1 An-12 Transport hit. According to pro Ukrainian AMK mapping.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jun 01 12:01:48 Lol jergul is butthurt.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jun 01 12:04:48 Seriously jergul everyone knows russia is both evil and stupid at the same time. You dont need to try to keep that ship afloat anymore. Its hopeless and over. You are convincing no one. Put your life jacket on and jump off that sinking shitbox.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 01 12:10:04 I am just fact checking you sammy. Amazing that you are still so guilable that you take Ukrainian claims at face value. Fool you once...
Paramount Member	Sun Jun 01 12:11:39 ”at least one A-50 airborne early warning aircraft” Attacking early warning systems justifies an immediate Russian nuclear attack against NATO countries the United States, Great Britain and France, as well as against Ukraine, in self-defense. Why does Russia allow this?
jergul large member	Sun Jun 01 12:15:46 I frankly don't care much beyond the strategic bombers attacked in Murmansk. They could have been armed with nuclear weapons. A nuclear disaster just off Norway's border and relatively close to where I live? Well, that could potentially give me something to talk to the neighbours about at the mail boxes.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 01 12:17:20 Para Because the evil stupid Russians are winning. You can read the attack on Russia's nuclear Triad as Ukraine hoping to change the conflict trajectory by provoking Russia into doing something silly.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jun 01 12:31:23 "that you take Ukrainian claims at face value." Well the ukraine has a tendancy to tell the truth... unlike russia. More importantly the 30 videos of burning russian heavy bombers and airfields is very strong evidence. Lol poor jergul/mountme. Since some of those are undoubtedly repeats i dont yet know the exact number of soviet bombers destroyed. But its likely more than 10.
Paramount Member	Sun Jun 01 12:32:25 They have not won until the USA, Britain and France are destroyed. Russia needs to realize that these countries (NATO) are out to destroy Russia, to break up their country and to dominate them.
LazyCommunist Member	Sun Jun 01 12:33:29 They already provoked us to do something smart and that was the SMO!
jergul large member	Sun Jun 01 12:43:15 Sammy Are you deranged? Ukraine absolutely does not have the tendency to tell the truth. As to whatever you think you are watching. 8 is still the confirmed count on aircraft hit. Rybar (pro russian) is pissed at Russia about it. Has the same number as the pro ukrainian source does.
jergul large member	Sun Jun 01 12:44:54 Actually, upped to 9 by Rybar*
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jun 01 13:10:11 I see about 14 major fire plumes from heavy bomber ramps and a few damaged planes as well. Your gonna need these now. http://x.com/Natsecjeff/status/1929233658629537915
murder Member	Sun Jun 01 15:23:45 "Losing 5 aircraft is like a lazy afternoon on a US aircraft carrier sammy" You just can't help yourself. It's a reflex and you need to examine why you do it. How much time did you spend in Russia?
jergul large member	Sun Jun 01 23:02:33 Murder That you suck as much as Russia is something you actually contest? Wow. Get a grip man.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jun 02 03:56:37 It is crazy how drones have changed everything avout warefare. Just smuggle in containers of them and you could paralyze a country taking out their electrical grid. We live in scare time.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 02 08:44:09 Lol jergul. Seems like the count now stands at a confirmed 13. 13 heavy bombers. Lmfao! But you dont have to be butthurt on the part of russia. Join in the festivities and laughter like the rest of us!
williamthebastard Member	Mon Jun 02 08:55:44 Its easily provable that Ukraine is a big headache for Putin. The proof is in the fact that the war is still ongoing. If they'd been a pushover, he would have ended it long ago.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 02 08:59:56 Project much sammy? I said wait and see because there will be sat pics. You believed the "more than 40". So Lmfao right back at you. Also, "seems". Lets wait for the imagery shall we? If there ever was something we did not need to speculate about.
Paramount Member	Mon Jun 02 09:09:55 ”the war” It is a Special Military Operation. Although. The other week Putin did refer to it as ”a war” for the first time. My guess is that the Russian delegation in Istanbul is going to offer the peace terms one last time. If Ukraine rejects the terms again, then Russia will declare war on Ukraine, och då kommer Ukraina att få se på andra bullar.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 02 09:16:21 Para Why would Russia change what it is doing? Ukraine needs to change the paradigm, why should Russia oblige? Escalation beyond the current template has known and unknown risks and costs.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 02 09:26:55 "You believed the "more than 40"." Lol try reading this very thread. Poor jergul.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 02 09:37:04 "that you take Ukrainian claims at face value." Well the ukraine has a tendancy to tell the truth... unlike russia." Sammy said that, right sammy? You were fact checked, so moderated you speculation afterwards. I don't get the value added from diving into Ukrainian fan fiction. Sure, Russia got hurt. Mostly because it has not put any major restrictions in place. But it can shrug off the airframe losses. Which is good, because those airframes are part of Russia's nuclear triad. It is not smart to attack someone's nuclear triad.
murder Member	Mon Jun 02 10:06:53 "It is not smart to attack someone's nuclear triad." Well their triad is diminished and the consequences are nonexistent. Also limiting Russia's ability to menace Europe with nuclear weapons may increase Europe's willingness to aid Ukraine. So maybe it is smart. They should target Russia's nuclear triad every single day if possible. -
TheChildren Member	Mon Jun 02 10:44:28 https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/istanbul-talks-conclude-feared-massive-russian-military-response-ukraine-hasnt-come scroll down da comments. 7 aircraft of which some were even retired already
TheChildren Member	Mon Jun 02 10:48:14 http://www...ry-response-ukraine-hasnt-come
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 02 12:25:28 Lol jergul hasnt been this butthurt since that cruiser got hit. "It is not smart to attack someone's nuclear triad." Lmfao! You dont get to use those bombers to launch missiles at civilians(or any part of the ukraine really) and then cry when ukraine hits those bombers. All of the world is laughing at russia for such a stupid claim.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 02 12:57:18 Sammy Projecting again I see. You are butthurt because I called you out on believing Ukraine. 40 aircraft lulz. Show me the sat pictures of 40 aircraft sammy. You cant, can you? Lulz, poor sammy.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 02 12:57:57 Noted that you think it is smart attacking someone's nuclear triad.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 02 13:23:53 You cant even read this thread correctly. Sam gave the following numbers: at least 10, about 14, and 13. But if you are so butthurt that you have to make yourself feel better by saying its not as bad as some retarded journalists initial story, you do you. Perhaps next time you should ignore the journalists and focus on the hard data: you could have counted the unique smoke plumes or looked at the satellite shots. The real data is usually out there. Bottom line: russias strategic bomber force got bitchslapped by toy drones and we are all laughing at russia.
Paramount Member	Mon Jun 02 15:16:38 The commander of Ukraine's land forces has supposedly resigned. This is very humiliating for Ukraine and Zelensky. The top commander no longer wants to continue to fight.
jergul large member	Mon Jun 02 15:17:05 Sammy believed Ukraine's 40+ aircraft destroyed. Lol Rofl. Sammy butthurt that I caught him out and tries to cover up.
Paramount Member	Mon Jun 02 15:24:06 The top commander leaves. What are all the grunts gonna think? If their commander leaves, why shouldn’t they also leave? lol
murder Member	Mon Jun 02 18:03:57 When you think you're studying the enemy but the enemy is turning you instead.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jun 02 19:07:49 Lol now russians are going to have to search everything. Its a rough start. http://x.com/mouw5284/status/1929636916053635492
jergul large member	Tue Jun 03 03:22:54 Sammy I will stop mirroring you now. But you see why you are often ignored? "The rofl, poor butthurt sammy" are simply not constructive. Murder The problem is more Ukrainian and Western propaganda being too detached from the truth. Its not good when the assumption is "ok, time to disect the BS". Good propaganda is variations on truth with very slanted angles. Russia still sucks. The invasion and annexations easily the worst we have seen from a major players in a very long time (if we exclude Israel from consideration). It will get worse before it gets better. Russia's gameplan is still to render Ukraine a huge liability to any ally and remove its will to fight for generations. Achievable only by crippling or killing a significant chunk of the mobilized population (say 10% of France is anything to go by). So yah, Russia sucks.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 03 03:24:40 if France*
Seb Member	Tue Jun 03 04:03:17 So, OS confirmations on kills is: Belaya 4 Tu 95 3 Tu 23m Ivanavo 1 a50 Olenya 5 Tu 95 1 AN 22 So 12 of maximum 90 russian bombers plus one of their few AWACS. 15% ain't bad. Especially as hard to replace. As for attacking the nuclear Dias etc. Russia's been threatening to use their nukes on Ukraine for ages, and Russia knows full well Ukraine isn't about to launch a nuclear first strike on Russia, nor does it threaten Russia's ability to attack the US. So the argument it is doing to destabilise by pressuring Russia into rushing to use air launched nukes immediately before they are rendered vulnerable to Ukrainian or US overmatch is implausible. Tuplevs are a first strike weapon (and not even Russia's best) with little credibility in terms of retaliation. They still have their IRBMs, GLCMs plus their subs.
murder Member	Tue Jun 03 04:31:14 "So the argument it is doing to destabilise by pressuring Russia into rushing to use air launched nukes immediately before they are rendered vulnerable to Ukrainian or US overmatch is implausible." Also that is simply not how decisions are made. Being rendered "vulnerable" still beats the hell out of being wiped out in a second strike scenario. The only way even semi-rational leaders are going to launch is if they are certain that they won't suffer devastating consequences in response, or if they have already been devastated or are in the process of being devastated and decide that they aren't going down alone. -
Seb Member	Tue Jun 03 06:57:15 Murder: The logic would be that the only reason someone is attaching your nuclear capabilities is because they intend to create the option to use nuclear weapons on you with limited fear of reprisal or at least acceptable levels of risk or cost from a reprisal So you'd seek to reduce your vulnerability by equally degrading theirs. Which in turn might become an escalatory spiral. If Russia started selectively targeting key Western air bases where tactical nukes are sighted that looks like preparation to create a gap in the escalation ladder and potential risk of them attacking us. We would probably react very strongly to that (disparity of power is such we'd probably keep it conventional, but the target would be their tactical nuclear systems, to retain parity). Equally if NATO started selectively attacking Russia's tactical nuclear weapons capability they'd be very worried about the same and might well decide to hit European NATO nuclear bases where the US tactical nukes are forward deployed and lacking much else, would probably use iskanders. Generally NATO/Russia are going to be very careful not to do anything that looks like a nuclear counterforce strike. None of this logic works if the other side has no nuclear capability or conventional capability to pose an existential threat though. Basically Ukraine can blow up Russia's Tuplevs all day long and that's embarrassing, but not anything that meaningfully undermines Russia's nuclear deterrent or it's existence as a state or could lead them to think anyone else is more able to do so.
murder Member	Tue Jun 03 07:55:54 "So you'd seek to reduce your vulnerability by equally degrading theirs. Which in turn might become an escalatory spiral." Which means you accomplish the exact opposite of what you set out to accomplish. The desired end state has to be the focus of decision making.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 03 11:45:11 Murder: Equally, sitting pretty and just watching as your nuclear weapon armed enemy removes your escalation ladder and then defeats you in the field and vanquishes your satellite states with tactical nuclear weapons, daring you to end the world isn't a desired end state either. Hence it's an unstable situation and one nuclear powers tend to avoid.
murder Member	Tue Jun 03 17:37:32 "Equally, sitting pretty and just watching as your nuclear weapon armed enemy removes your escalation ladder and then defeats you in the field ..." You're making all kinds of assumptions and none of it changes the reality. The possibility of destruction beats the hell out of the certainty of it. There is no debate to be had there. We've had variation on this discussion before where I asserted that the US could flatten the Kremlin with zero danger of a nuclear response. People always assume that a nuclear armed state will go nuclear if attacked, but it's never actually happened. The red lines are not where you think they are. -
jergul large member	Tue Jun 03 17:48:04 Seb I do not think you thoughts pass a repriocity test. Can Russia now sponsor and enable a third party to take out docked UK nuclear submarines for as long as it does not participate in it? You do get that you are sponsoring and enabling Ukraine I trust. For as long as it takes or so the mantra goes. Do you really want to live in a world were proxies can freely degrade nuclear arsenals? We should all be happy Russia's triad remains intact in other words. Murder All you are arguing is that a first strike is always an optional move. Who knows? The opposition might chicken out after getting nuked.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 03 18:18:29 Jergul: Russia's been sponsoring "third party" attacks across European countries for ages. It plays silly games and now gets silly prizes. UK's ballistic missile subs are not a good comparison. There's a reason they aren't used to mount conventional attacks. Russia's bombers - as I pointed out - are first strike weapons, not very good ones compared to their irbms, and *not* equivalent to their second strike deterrent on their subs. Britain doesn't use it's vanguard subs to launch nightly attacks on this hypothetical third party, so an attack by a proxy to disable our ability to retaliate only has one real explanation and the risk for Russia is UK decision makers would leap to the conclusion that that was Russia's intent, which would potentially lead to the UK doing something equally dangerous. This isn't the case with Russia's bombers. If they were critical part of the deterrent they would keep them ring-fenced. Murder: You think you can flatten the Kremlin, which to all extents and purposes *is* Russia, and they'd hold back. For fear of what?
Seb Member	Tue Jun 03 18:22:58 Basically if you make a state think you are about to destroy it, they might go nuclear. A good way to make them think you are about to destroy it is to try and neutralise it's second strike nuclear deterrent because the only reason you'd want to do that is because you are about to try and destroy them completely.
murder Member	Tue Jun 03 19:36:46 "All you are arguing is that a first strike is always an optional move." No, I'm arguing that a first strike is a suicidal move if the target can retaliate, and is therefore off the table. If someone blows up your nuclear weapons, you can make more. If they wreck your delivery systems, you can make more. If they destroy your country because you got butt hurt and launched a first strike, you can't make more.
murder Member	Tue Jun 03 19:41:14 "You think you can flatten the Kremlin, which to all extents and purposes *is* Russia, and they'd hold back. For fear of what?" Because it's not Russia. The Kremlin II is always an option, but only if you still have a nation to govern. -
murder Member	Tue Jun 03 19:48:09 "Basically if you make a state think you are about to destroy it, they might go nuclear." No. If you make a nuclear state think that you are about to destroy it, they will contact you and tell you that they see what you're doing and they are capable of defending themselves. There is no amount of targeting their nukes that is going to make them launch. They will simply seek to better protect them, and then try to retaliate in kind or in whatever way they are capable that they think serves their interests best. Proliferation is a cheap and easy way to bleed the US and EU. No nukes required ... although that threat is always there. -
Seb Member	Wed Jun 04 00:50:37 Murder: "If someone blows up your nuclear weapons, you can make more" No you can't, because obviously the only reason to take out your nukes is they intend to destroy you completely and their first act is to disarm you, so you better disarm then pdq.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 04 00:57:53 Murder: "The Kremlin II is always an option, but only if you still have a nation to govern" That's almost certainly not how the regime sees it. If you are blowing up the Kremlin you are trying to kill the regime, so they're isn't going to be a Kremlin II and who gives a shit about the provinces? "If you make a nuclear state think that you are about to destroy it, they will contact you " They might try, but also the response times here are measured in minutes so the quickest, easiest way to contact your attacker and remind them they are starting Armageddon is to respond quickly with the most powerful weapons you have in a proportionate way. Invoking things that will take years (better protecting your nuclear weapons) in a scenario that measured in hours isn't going to work. Your entire idea boils down to "everyone will hope for the best". It won't go down like that at all once the situation turns violent. But this is kinda irrelevant because it's all predicated on a *real* fear you are about to come under a strategic attack and Ukraine simply doesn't pose that level of threat, nor can their actions in this case translate into creating such an immediate opportunity for a third country.
jergul large member	Wed Jun 04 01:20:43 Well, hopefully you will not have to find out what happens if your nuclear submarines are ever targetted by proxies. About two thirds of them are habitually moored or in drydocks I believe. Fooling around with Triads is potentially gamechanging. Which was probably Ukraine's point. It really needs to change the game somehow.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 04 03:27:00 Jergul: If we start using air speed dropped nuclear bombs, and get into a conflict with the IRA, and the IRA bomb an F-35 base, the obvious response will be to launch a nuclear attack on Russia? Because that doesn't work does it. And it's nothing to do with symmetry or righteous indignation or whatever. It's simply the case that we know damned well that blowing up some F-35s doesn't alter our ability to turn Moscow into a radioactive crater so there's no reason to perceive an imminent existential threat. Similarly, Ukraine can destroy every Russian bomber and it doesn't mean shit in terms of Russian confidence in it's ability to successfully launch even first strike tactical nuclear weapons. Further NATO and Russia are aware of each others posture. There's no dilemma in either case. What would be more of an issue is if Ukraine set out to comprehensively blind Russia's ability to detect a NATO first strike, or otherwise significantly degrade its second strike capability. That genuinely could be misinterpreted as part of a sneak NATO attack. And that's the problem with your analogy. In seeking to find an analogy for emotional resonance you've broken the logic because the UK doesn't maintain a first strike or lower rung retaliatory force of tactical weapons on dual-use platforms. You should have used France or the US. And if you had it would be obvious: an attack on Frances dual use Rafale's resulting in French nuclear retaliation at the perceived sponsor would not be seen as legitimate. France would generally be perceived as having gone completely mad.
jergul large member	Wed Jun 04 05:29:55 Seb The UK has first strike capability underpinned by a doctine that allows first strike capability. The submarines also have dual use capability in the form of torpedoes. Ukraine has also targetted Russian early warning radars previously. I find that you are arguing that UK does in fact not have a survivable nuclear deterrent as it could easily lose 75% of its capability to assymetical proxie threats without recourse. Thankfully, it does need it either as two nuclear powered allies are backing up the UK. Why are you spending billions of pounds on this then? I think you are factually wrong. Attacking part of a Triad is inherently dangerous and courting this danger is Ukraine's goal. The war's paradigm has to change and Ukraine is seeking to provoke change. It does look like Russia is quite aware and will avoid doing anything that has the potential of changing the paradigm. Thankfully.
Paramount Member	Wed Jun 04 08:50:19 Putin is too soft. Russia needs to understand that the US and the UK and the rest of NATO’s aim is to defeat Russia and break up the country into smaller provinces and then to subjugate and rule over them. Russia needs to come to terms with this and act accordingly. They will not win the conflict until the USA, UK and NATO is destroyed.
Paramount Member	Wed Jun 04 08:51:44 Like Nazi Germany was destroyed.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jun 04 10:11:25 A whole set of new videos dropped. Ahahahaha this is amazing. It might actually have been 30-40 planes. So many bombers getting hit! Hard to keep track theres so many. Why do russians scatter tires on top of their wings? What retarded vodka-wasted idiocy is this.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Jun 04 10:30:57 The US wasnt informed because they dont trust the US http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uvHS7gmyS4
williamthebastard Member	Wed Jun 04 12:10:03 Perfect close up video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ1VoPhzopc
jergul large member	Wed Jun 04 15:19:12 Sammy The numbers have not changed. But the video drop was nice. Turns out an T-50 was a derelict wreck with no engines. At best, Ukraine hit some spare parts in that case.
jergul large member	Wed Jun 04 15:19:28 Tu*
Seb Member	Wed Jun 04 16:33:00 Jergul: You don't really expect me to take this seriously. Vanguard's have torpedos for self defence, and if we were deploying them as attack subs you'd have an excellent point. But there's a bloody good reason we don't use the vanguard's as attack subs or to launch conventional strikes and it's precisely that reason: it would put our most critical defensive capability at risk and we couldn't possibly expect the enemy not to attack it if we were using it conventionally.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 04 17:10:19 Let's consider some scenarios and some actual facts. Scenario 1: In the middle of a war between NATO and Russia, some terrorists successfully attack UK's vanguard subs. In that context, it's actually quite easy to see how that might very quickly lead to the UK leadership to start shitting its pants that the next thing to happen will be a Russian sub we'd missed sinking the one on patrol and a Russian attack on the UK, and whether the best thing to do should be to order a demonstrative warning strike right now. Nothing to do with honour or "rules" in the way you imply: legitimate fear and confusion and uncertainty. Let's consider another scenario: For some god forsaken reason, we've used a vanguard to pop torpedos off at Iranian ships and rather embarrassingly they've detected and depth charged it. Is the UK going to be worried this is part of a devilish russian plan to defang the deterrent? No. It's fucking obvious we have just done something rather silly, the Iranians have done the very obvious and reasonable thing of destroying a threat. Meanwhile we have three more elsewhere (two ready to fire) and no detectable changes to Russian posture. So is the UK leadership faced with any dilemma here? No. Not at all. If someone says "shit man, maybe we better nuke Russia now", does that make any sense? Nah. Now let's look at some facts: does Russia display any actual fear that it's ability to deter a threat to its existence is diminished, or that Ukraine's attack was the beginning of a NATO first strike? Well there was naff all change to its nuclear posture. They didn't rush to mount their warheads off delivery systems and disperse. So factually I think it's pretty fucking clear that in context, it was a safe move. And this is why it's sensible not to mix strategic nuclear capabilities up with tactical conventional capabilities because there can be no expectation that dual use or colocated facilities used for conventional attack with impunity because "deterrent". The reverse isn't true. Tactical nukes might serve as a mini deterrent to keep certain airbases as "not worth the risk" to attack provided they aren't descisive and the conflict is seen as limited. Much like Russia does with ZNPP.
jergul large member	Wed Jun 04 17:31:07 Or lets say that you are involved in some conflict with a party Russia is heavily supporting. That Russian supported proxy destroys 3 of your four nuclear submarines in their moorings. It seems to me that Ukraine has established this is completely ok. At least by your line of argument. Why then even bother building the new vessels? They are simply too vulnerable.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 05 02:02:39 Jergul: You are making a category error that this is about norms that Ukraine can establish. It's got nothing to do with that and entirely to do with what kind of panicked decision making and risk calculations the nuclear power is making, which are contextual. What you describe seems similar to scenario 1, with the difference being that the UK is not in active conflict with Russia at the time. In that case I don't think the UK leadership would be as likely come to the conclusion that a nuclear attack by Russia was imminent and decide to attack Russia. We would be able to observe Russia's stance and assuming, like NATO right now, it's not in any particular high state of readiness, then obviously deciding to use a limited "warning strike" wouldn't improve the UK situation but actually provoke Russian escalation. Nor would we likely attack the proxy with nuclear weapons (no real point) assuming in this scenario the proxy itself poses no direct threat to the UK's existence. And like I said, we already know the Russians didn't perceive the attacks on their bombers - the ones they use to attack Ukraine regularly with conventional weapons - as something meriting shifting to a higher state of readiness Vis a vis NATO, let alone retaliation. So I'll just end with my last point: the way you approach this argument suggests your model for what's happening is wrong and is based on some kind of implied rules where the aggrieved party feels entitled to escalate. In reality "use it or lose it" dynamics are entirely driven internal panic about being outmanoeuvred towards an end game that threatens the existence of your country that justifies the risk of triggering assured destruction. Ukraine simply doesn't pose that threat, and it's clear to Russia that NATO isn't going for that right now, and even the complete loss of the bomber fleet wouldn't really increase Russia's vulnerability or ability to deter NATO. So there's no real "lose it" to incentives the "use it".
Seb Member	Thu Jun 05 02:05:58 The basic and obvious point here is that mixing nuclear and conventional capabilities isn't wise. We all knew that was the case in relation to conventionally armed trident for "prompt global strike" - and that was envisaged to be used only on terrorists. In this case it's particularly manageable because the air launched weapons are more or less obsolete except as first strike tactical weapons.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 05 02:30:37 As for the subs being vulnerable port-side, I expect a lot of thought will be going into how to protect assets from similar attack. Hardened shelters will be back in fashion at airfields and ports across Europe. But let's say the UK was involved in a high intensity war with a neighbour in a scenario where the other party couldn't really threaten our existence in a way trident was relevant, but could launch conventional strikes, we might try to work out how to keep the nukes out of it (ensure there was no conventional advantage for targeting the site and threaten all sorts of dire retaliation, for example) but of course holding such a high value strategic asset at risk is something the enemy will want to do for leverage. So it's difficult. For the UK (in this scenario). How to go all out conventionally, while also holding something back that we could credibly use to threaten the enemy if they hit the subs? At this point, if the UK is behaving like Russia and blowing up hospitals and what have you, what's our escalation? More and bigger war crimes? We are already doing what we think we can get away with without triggering more pressure from outside. Would the UK (or any power) gain advantage from actual nuclear retaliation in this situation? Probably not. Potentially, it could backfire badly. And just when our deterrent is at its weakest. Not a good move. So yeah, if we got ourselves into this scenario we'd not have many good options. Maybe getting into this kind of scenario is a really stupid thing to do? But having, in this scenario, got into it having a lack of adequately calibrated reprisal that would be credible to deter an attack, and inability to protect the subs from attack, that's very much the UK's problem in this scenario (Russia's in reality vis-a-vis planes), not the enemy's. And while we could at this point decide "fuck it, we'll drop a nuke on our neighbours and say we were justified" it isn't going to bring the subs back, and the rest of the world are unlikely to nod along and agree we had no choice. In fact they are probably going to want to do everything they can not to normalise nuke usage, do it probably isn't going to improve our situation. So, the answer is "in an age of increasing cheap strike options, high value long lead time assets are vulnerable and need additional protection".
Seb Member	Thu Jun 05 02:37:39 I think we had noted before, non nuclear states have in some ways more leeway. Iran - if it did have a nuke - would be far far less able to respond to Israeli pinpoint strikes with ballistic missiles as any ballistic missile barrage could be utterly fatal for Israel, and if they see preparation of BMs there's a much higher risk of them pre-empting it.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 05 03:45:30 Seb One catagorical error you are making is Ukraine's motive for attacking Russia's nuclear triad. In my opinion is has everything to do with changing the war's paradigm. Provoking an escalation that will somehow solidify game-changing support from the West. The dual use is not the point. Hence striking bases 6k km away from Ukraine. You are dancing close to a straw man fallacy by thinking the only reason degrading Triads is dangerous is by the risk of intepretating attacks as a precursor for an immediate nuclear strike. I am sure the UK can aspire to engage in warfare as civily as Russia and might one day be able to limit civilian deaths as much as Russia has. But I doubt you will ever pull it off. Too casualty adverse I fear. A higher toll on the frontlines is the price you have to pay for restraint on civilian targets. See UN numbers on number of dead Ukrainian civilians for details. So there we are. Ukraine has castrated the UKs nuclear deterrent. It is too vulnerable to proxy warfare and cannot be counted on in long term defence planning. Why do you even have it? Effective protection barring North Korean (or Norwegian) style subterranian sub bases is almost impossible. Modern anti-ship missiles can easily be containerized and launched from an appropriate civilian vessel.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 05 04:23:35 Jergul: I think the reason they did it was simple: 1. It degrades Russia's ability to launch air launched cruise missiles: they'll need to take measures like moving planes around etc. repeatedly which reduces sortie rates. 2. It forces Russia to impose more awkward measures at home that bring the war home. Already there are significant impacts from checks on trucks. Logistical impact plus morale impact. 3. In the Clausewitz sense, a "spectacular" hit on a prestige capability and one that's hard for Russia to replace, demonstrates real costs to Russia for avoiding serious engagement in cease fire talks and refutes the claim Ukraine has no cards. There's no need to bandy round the idea that somehow it will provoke have changing responses from Russia. The only escalation Russia has left is to start using WMD and that's not in Ukraine's interest. "Hence striking bases 6k km away from Ukraine." If it's something they can likely only pull off once, best to hit all the bombers they can. Bombers fly, so what's 6k km away be over head tomorrow night. That's kinda of the whole point of strategic bombers. "the only reason degrading Triads is dangerous is by the risk of intepretating attacks as a precursor for an immediate nuclear strike." That's the case. Russia isn't holding anything back for gentlemanly reasons, but as you say, as much as they can get away with without provoking further interventions (militarily or economically) from the rest of the world. So in your scenario that's the case for this hypothetical war between the UK and whoever this Russian proxy is. So yes, the only added risk the attacker has in attacking our subs is: 1. If by attacking them they shifted sympathy enough that the RoW would look the other way of we used WMD on this proxy. I judge this unlikely. Especial in the situation we had actually been using the subs to attack the proxy conventionally. 2.If the UK shits it's pants, think Armageddon is around the corner and decided to roll the dice. "Ukraine has castrated the UKs nuclear deterrent." I mean, sure, you can convince yourself of that if you want. Personally I don't think that's the case. There's nobody who seems about to attack our Trident subs, and little prospect of us getting into a conflict with someone who could who doesn't themselves have nuclear weapons and who would then be misinterpreted as about to start WW3 in doing so, prompting launch orders. But in the event that the UK gets into the very strange situation of a high intensity war with a non-nuclear power that can pull off such an attack, yes, getting castrated is a risk you'd need to prepare for; rather than grandly assume you are too important for someone to dare do so if you leave your balls just hanging there. One wonders why Russia has made the mistake of so doing.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 05 04:27:56 "Effective protection barring North Korean (or Norwegian) style subterranian sub bases is almost impossible" We used to keep them Polaris subs in Lochs. Might well be feasible to do something subterranean. The other thing, of course, is to just not get into situations where we, as a nuclear power, are fighting an aggressive high intensity war with almost no international backing against a country that could pull that off.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 05 04:31:50 Seb Missile availability is the limiting factor. The bases Ukraine attacked were generally not in range of Ukraine. It also does nothing to change the war's paradigm. My theory has far greater explanatory power than yours. Russia has many escalatory paths. It can begin systematic targetting of command and decision making centers. It can blow the bridges across the Dnipro. It can begin to Gaza Sumy and Kharkiv cities. To name a few examples. Russia is in other words holding many things back for gentlemanly reasons. It does not want to indiscriminately wreak havoc on its kindred people (from a Russian perspective) simply to save time or to limit frontline losses. Your next d2p adventure is the one where you have to worry about charted freighters with "special" containers on board. This if you choose to not worry about the Houthis doing something like that.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 05 16:35:05 Your theory fails Occam's Razor. Russia is doing everything it can it thinks it can get away with. Your attack, if anything runs the risk of legitimising russian escalation according to you. Three of the bases were not only in range but also they caught planes with cruise missiles loaded. The bases on the other side of Russia isn't really relevant: the objective being to destroy as many bombers as possible.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 06 03:28:07 "Missile availability is the limiting factor" So, generally a good idea to complicate the logistics by forcing regular movement of planes between bases and missiles (becomes too obvious where the planes will eventually be otherwise).
jergul large member	Fri Jun 06 03:28:47 Wrong. I nailed it!
jergul large member	Fri Jun 06 03:35:24 The punitive action seem to be destroying military-civilian decision making centers. Two have been destroyed completely, one in a series of 3 strikes with glide bombs in Kherson city. A number of Ukraine's oblasts are under military-civilian administration. As per the wording of Zelenskiy's decree puting the oblasts under military control. So not me playing with words. 4 oblast admin cities (kherson, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Sumy) are within very easy glide bomb range.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 06 05:02:18 I'm sorry this is sophistry. Your argument is that the goal of attacking the aircraft was to provoke Russia to attack military govt centres, in the hope it would cause European countries to give more aid, when Russia has bombed all sorts of civilian targets far more likely to evoke sympathy? Sure, Russia retaliated. But this isn't a significant escalation. The Ukrainian objective is clear: destroy as many irreplaceable high value planes as possible to degrade Russias capability to launch cruise missiles at Ukraine, force operational changes likely to decrease the rate of attacks by alcm, and highlight the costs of continued conflict to Russia in terms of risk to an irreplaceable prestige military capability.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 06 07:32:01 Seb Fair enough. You think Ukrainians are stupid. The multi-spectrum attacks targetting Russia's Triad civilian passenger trains and the Kerch bridge against the backdrop of negotiation demands is just random shit happening. Ukraine objective is clear. Escalate to trigger Russian escalations that in turn will rejuvinate international support and include key players like China and the global south. Ideally, Russia should have been provoked into using a few tactical nukes against an Ukrainian airbase or two. Sadly, Russia is not as stupid as Ukraine thinks it is.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 06 07:33:35 It is funny to me that you dont understand Ukraine needs to change the paradigm or it will lose a significant chunk of its country.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 06 08:02:31 Jergul: No, of course they are part of that run up as I mentioned earlier. Previous rounds of negotiations have seen Russia demand what amounts to unconditional surrender. These are not serious engagement and indicate Russia believes the cost of continuing the conflict is acceptable, can be contained, and addressed later. The point of attacking the bridge, the air bases and lines of communication in Russia is to demonstrate that Ukraine can continue to impose significant cost and pain for Russia to continue the war - to bring it home so to speak. I don't know what it is that makes you go doolally when it comes to Russia, but no, they weren't trying to provoke a nuclear strike, and attacking bombers isn't ever going to do that; as evidenced by the Russians not even changing their nuclear readiness posture. Far from me thinking the Ukrainians are stupid, it seems to be you that think so.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 06 08:43:35 Seb The one thing Russia is bringing to the table is any deal made today will be better than what is on offer tomorrow. So, no, Russia is not demanding unconditional surrender. It will always leave Ukraine with more to lose through continued fighting than through negotiations now. Inflicting significant and escalatory costs and pain on a nuclear power is designed to compel the nuclear power to escalate. To what end? The only end that matters. Changing the war's paradigm. So, yes, ideally from an Ukrainian perspective, the Russian response would have been to tactically nuke a few airbases. Dead numbered in the 100ds at worst and a global community clamouring for a ceasefire now. Including parts of the community able to compel Russia to agree to a ceasefire. See? A paradigm change. What paradigm change does your understanding of Ukraine's escalation have going for it? None me thinks. The war continues on an ever degrading trajectory for Ukraine.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: